There's this one source on Reddit which calculated that Anthropic has been subsidizing their costs by 32x
1,553 karma · joined May 11, 2022
There's this one source on Reddit which calculated that Anthropic has been subsidizing their costs by 32x
I've been saying this with many of my friends but, I feel like it's also probably illegal: you paid for a subscription where you expect X out of, and if they changed the terms of your subscription (e.g. serving worse models) after you paid for it, was that not false advertising? Could we not ask for a refund, or even sue?
Having contributed to some of Poetry's codebase, I realize that this is actually a very scalable pattern. The only issue is that there isn't a library that embraces it.
Finally, I envision a fully-fledged, batteries-included framework that handles everything from verbosity flags to configuration files.
While I had concieved of this idea a long time ago, I had only been able to finish and launch this recently with the help of AI. As you can tell, the documentation is AI-generated. However, that shouldn't detract from the core idea.
> A world in which Python only supported imports behaving in a lazy manner would likely be great...we do not envision the Python langauge transitioning to a world where lazy imports are the default...this concept would add complexity to our ecosystem.
Why can't lazy be the default and instead propose an `eager` syntax? The only argument I can imagine is that there's some API that runs a side effect based on importing, but perhaps making it eager for modules with side effects would be a sufficient temporary fix?
Disclaimer that I actually don't know what the full extent this chat control law is asking for, except for the fact that it will deeply compromise encryption
Never? If you use proper encapsulation (e.g. tools such as pipx or using virtual environments), that's a non-issue. It only gets bad when there's Python version incompatibilities